Jump to content

Recommended Posts



Moral relativism is a brilliant concept. I would also like to take a nuanced view of the Holocaust, six million dead but the train service was top notch. The conquistadors in Latin America, millions dead from small pox but many now speak Spanish and where would they be without the church which justified slavery for the indigenous people.http://youtu.be/0S2NKlMW0vc

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> more idiots

>

> http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60680000/jpg

> /_60680351_unionjackbowlerhat.jpg

>

> http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02238/

> BRITAIN-QUEEN_2238082k.jpg


Somehow I suspect you lie awake at night worrying that someone, somewhere is enjoying themselves.

Well Woody should worry about me then as I enjoy reading his somewhat OTT posts. As much as I find that I respect the Queen and quite like Phil, it's a bizarre world where people are born into a position of such authority and a lot of other people think it's great. It's actually just silly in my opinion. The royal family is really similar to an ongoing soap opera that people have grown attached to. That's about it.

Fabricio the Guido Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> Moral relativism is a brilliant concept. I would

> also like to take a nuanced view of the Holocaust,

> six million dead but the train service was top

> notch. The conquistadors in Latin America,

> millions dead from small pox but many now speak

> Spanish and where would they be without the church

> which justified slavery for the indigenous

> people.http://youtu.be/0S2NKlMW0vc


Try to be more nuanced in your responses please - this is pathetic.

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > RosieH Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Is it my imagination, or are people on here

> > > becoming more and more unhinged..?

> >

> > You want to pop over the the Guradian site and

> see

> > some of the mouth-frothing comments on there.

> The

> > 'republicanism is not dead' article is a

> > particularly wonderful collection of thoughts

> from

> > rationally challenged..

>

> TBF, if you want sense, then cat owning Guardian

> readers are probabaly not going to reap a

> bountiful harvest. Guardian readers are paper

> tigers.



Whereas you are a real tiger, are you tiger?

MM, does this count as a nuanced view? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100048709/the-history-of-british-india-will-serve-david-cameron-well-as-long-as-he-doesnt-talk-about-it/

It is from the Daily Telegraph after all


One of the links in the article is to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770. I won't insist that we consider this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 as there is still some dispute about the (British) administration's culpability.


I quote you:

"those of us capable of a more nuanced look at the world can see both the enormous benefits that came out of the Britsh Empire as well as the many negatives - tho' many of those negatives are only so in the light of today's mores and not, of themselves, absolutely wrong or evil."


and ask two questions

man-made famines - are these an example of what is no longer negative "in the light of today's mores and not, of themselves, absolutely wrong or evil."?

benefits of Empire - yes, of course there were/are many, but you seem to be using ends to justify means. Do I understand you correctly?


No longer so easy to defend Empire. Even the Queen's advisers suggest she lay it to rest http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/honours-list/9249069/Queen-should-take-the-Empire-out-of-our-honours-system-say-Lord-Lieutenants.html,

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MM, does this count as a nuanced view?

> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/10004

> 8709/the-history-of-british-india-will-serve-david

> -cameron-well-as-long-as-he-doesnt-talk-about-it/

>

> It is from the Daily Telegraph after all

>

> One of the links in the article is to this -

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770

> . I won't insist that we consider this

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

> as there is still some dispute about the (British)

> administration's culpability.

>

> I quote you:

> "those of us capable of a more nuanced look at the

> world can see both the enormous benefits that came

> out of the Britsh Empire as well as the many

> negatives - tho' many of those negatives are only

> so in the light of today's mores and not, of

> themselves, absolutely wrong or evil."

>

> and ask two questions

> man-made famines - are these an example of what is

> no longer negative "in the light of today's mores

> and not, of themselves, absolutely wrong or

> evil."?

> benefits of Empire - yes, of course there were/are

> many, but you seem to be using ends to justify

> means. Do I understand you correctly?

>

> No longer so easy to defend Empire. Even the

> Queen's advisers suggest she lay it to rest

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/honours-lis

> t/9249069/Queen-should-take-the-Empire-out-of-our-

> honours-system-say-Lord-Lieutenants.html,



Marginally more nuanced but it appears you still wish to paint the British Empire and all its works as irredeemably a bad thing. It wasn't. You misunderstand me - I was not trying to defend the indefensible, but trying to point out to those, such as Woodrot, that the world cannot be divided into Good / Bad; Right / Wrong; Left; Right as he seems to believe.


I did not say that the wrongs you raise as examples are simply seen as wrong by today's standards. Indeed I was trying to make the point that at least in certain instances the British recognised that they were in the wrong and started to change matters.


Remember Britain disengaged from what was then known as the Empire in a remarkably democratic fashion, handing over power and authority to the citizens of the many countries that now make up the Commonwealth, itself a positive organisation that is both democratic and a force for good in this world. Britain's handover didn't work well everywhere - the partition of India was clearly badly judged and mishandled, many African states fell into corruption and dictatorships but Britain didn't try to defend the impossible as France and Belgium did.

Thank you, MM, "marginally more nuanced" - I'm sure that the Daily Telegraph would so love to hear your endoresment!

Lovely also to share your knowledge of British Imperial disengagement policy at its highest level.


France and particularly Belgium as baselines for reference... hmmmm... Given that we still have a lot of explaining to do about the opium trade, the Malaysian Emergency, the Mau Mau rebellion - just to take some top-of-head examples at random - I agree that they are the only way to ensure that Britain comes out ahead of its co-players in the Imperial game.


I would be very interested to hear your explanation of why "many African states fell into corruption and dictatorships" - I'm really looking forward to it.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can try to make a moral claim for the Empire. Is Colonisation ever a good thing? Maybe for the colonisers but rarely will it be for the colonised. Hence, my comment about relativism,but I see that I should have just referenced the Telegraph rather than mention abstract concepts.


Britain didn't try and defend the indefensible : so what about Britain's support for Rhodesia and South Africa?

Imagine a world where Hiter or Stalin or Mao's Grankids still headed the show in their countries- there would be justifiable outrage.


Mass murderers offsping & desendents should not be allowed to profit from their relatives genocidal bent. Usually anyway.


The Royals are living off the proceeds of murder, rape and pillage on a global scale.


You welcome their contined presence, you are sneering at the slaughter of millions - both at home and overseas


Enjoy your celebrations.I hope you can wash the blood off your hands when its all over.

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Imagine a world where Hiter or Stalin or Mao's

> Grankids still headed the show in their countries-

> there would be justifiable outrage.

>

> Mass murderers offsping & desendents should not be

> allowed to profit from their relatives genocidal

> bent. Usually anyway.

>

> The Royals are living off the proceeds of murder,

> rape and pillage on a global scale.

>

> You welcome their contined presence, you are

> sneering at the slaughter of millions - both at

> home and overseas

>

> Enjoy your celebrations.I hope you can wash the

> blood off your hands when its all over.



Thanks having a wonderful time so far, long may it continue.

God Save The Queen

The Fascist Regime,

They Made You A Moron

A Potential H-Bomb.


God Save The Queen

She Ain't No Human Being.

There Is No Future

In England's Dreaming


Don't Be Told What You Want

Don't Be Told What You Need.

There's No Future

There's No Future

There's No Future For You


God Save The Queen

We Mean It Man

We Love Our Queen

God Saves


God Save The Queen

'Cos Tourists Are Money

And Our Figurehead

Is Not What She Seems


Oh God Save History

God Save Your Mad Parade

Oh Lord God Have Mercy

All Crimes Are Paid.


When There's No Future

How Can There Be Sin

We're The Flowers

In The Dustbin

We're The Poison

In Your Human Machine

We're The Future

You're Future


God Save The Queen

We Mean It Man

We Love Our Queen

God Saves



God Save The Queen

We Mean It Man

There Is No Future

In England's Dreaming


No Future

No Future For You

No Fufure For Me

file.php?20,file=52038


Real Republicans must be weary of the cynicism of Woodrot and his small following. Republicanism as a political theory posits that a Monarchy is not necessary because the wisdom and common sense of the citizens of any country can make a better stab at governing their country. Woodrot appear to turn that idea upside down - in his view it is the foolishness, naivety and sheeplike devotion to an outdated concept of British citizens (subjects?) that maintains the Monarchy. So rather than trusting the British people, Woodrot despises, insults and diminishes them.


His stance also ignores the evolution of the British Constitution - where the Monarchy has given up true power and authority to the democratically elected government in return for a its continuance as a symbol of continuity and history.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah, yes...

>

> 1977 - writing punk songs against the Queen and

> the establishment

>

> 2012 - advertising butter.

>

> They all come around in the end, don't they?


Well Loz it may surprise you that he made royalties (awful word :-)) in 77 and had a bank account. He must have sold out before he revolted!

He also used the NHS and roads paid for by road tax. You can still disagree with society even if you have to join in to survive. Next you will say the Syrian people have sold out because they go to government hospitals after being shot by the Army.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...